Writing about football pundits seemed like a good idea at the beginning of the week. But after being knocked out of the Uefa Cup, and with my own part to play in the defeat, I was feeling a little less enthusiastic.

Over the years I have got used to the media coverage, its tendency to swing between really good and really bad, and I've learned to stop thinking that it means the world. Still, its influence should never be underestimated.

Recently we have seen two promising young Premier League managers succumb to the pressure of the TV pundits and Fleet Street's finest. Roy Keane complained that the TV 'experts' got it wrong more often than they got it right, and has subsequently quit his managerial role at Sunderland, while last week Paul Ince said he felt 'targeted' for criticism by the papers. When you're under pressure and you're getting hammered by the media, it is a burden. It's the opinions that get you, and that's the paradox - the stats should tell you all you need to know and yet it's the opinions that always take centre stage.

Footballers have been groaning about media pundits for as long as I can remember. Whether it was chuckling about Paul Elliott's penchant for 18-letter words in his punditry, or moaning about getting slaughtered in the local press, there was always a talking point. The main bone of contention would be with ex-players who commented on the game. I don't want to get all Freemason-like but the perception was that they had broken an unwritten rule: never criticise another footballer. It was seen as traitorous.

Those ex-pros who did choose punditry as a career were sometimes seen as jealous - 'bitter old bastards', some used to call them - especially around the time when money began pouring into the game after the older generation had missed out. Times have changed though and now even current players and managers frequently take up the mantle.

In truth, when it comes to criticism, football makes for rich pickings. Only a handful of teams can ever achieve anything each year, which leaves plenty of scope for negative comment. And of course there are column inches to be filled. Maybe that's why I'm not a pundit, because I can't talk about any old thing for four hours, or turn out pages of copy every day and make it entertaining.

Steve Coppell once said every Premier League match is like a four-day event with all the build-up and post-mortems. There's something predictable about it all. Even now I'll come across a newspaper clipping from years gone by, and I'll think how, save for a few name changes here and there, it could have been written about a match played last week. It's always the same formula: heroes and villains; win, lose or draw.

Looking at the headlines on Friday morning about our European defeat, it seemed that the old 'Calamity James' tag was back again. As my psychologist says, you're only ever one incident away from being back where you started. He says it's because belief systems inform our opinions. If a 16-year-old has a great run of games he is made for life because the belief is that if you're great at 16 then you are always going to be great. Only injury or disaster can interfere with that destiny. And even then you are still a great player, only disrupted by external events. The 16-year-old superstar may go on to have a poor run of form for a few years, but he's only got to score a few and then he's back to his best, back to being a superstar. It works both ways though - earn yourself a negative tag and it sticks, stubbornly.

And you feel like the whole world knows it. I've had those moments when you wonder whether there is anyone out there who doesn't know about your mistake. I remember having a bad spell at Liverpool and saying something about it not being very nice going into Tesco knowing the girl behind the till is thinking, 'Dodgy keeper.' That was made a quote of the week. But I went into Tesco after that and one of the girls at the till turned to my ex-wife and said, 'Tell your husband we don't all think that way.' The thing is if you are the one being hammered it really feels like they do.

So are pundits actually any good? My mum agrees with Roy Keane. She says she can't stand the ones on television, preferring to watch football with the volume turned down and the radio on. For me Alan Hansen is one pundit I have always admired and respected. He was always fair, unlike other former players who would have a bias either for or against their old club. And he would say it as he saw it: one week he might be complimentary, the next week he could be cutting, but I always felt he was true to his opinion.

I can honestly say I can't envisage a media career ahead of me. I once did the analysis for a game on 5live - Arsenal v Nottingham Forest at Highbury - when I was injured at West Ham. I remember Thierry Henry dived for a penalty, which I mentioned, and all of a sudden John Motson was egging me on to talk about it. I thought, 'Do I need to be calling Thierry Henry a cheat to keep the radio happy?' That's not really my cup of tea. I was never asked to go on again, so maybe I was terrible at it.

I guess I'm just not cracked up to be one of those people. I can't gas about stuff, I can't waffle and I can never remember players' names. It's the pedant in me that would really struggle though. I like to know where every blade of grass was when the ball bounced before I feel comfortable making a verdict.

Age and experience may not push me towards a career as a pundit, but they have certainly helped me learn to roll with those pundit punches. Whereas I used to watch programmes such as Match of the Day religiously, and take on board everything that was said, now I don't really care. The only opinions I care about are those of Tony Adams and Fabio Capello, along with their goalkeeping coaches. If anyone else says well done super duper, that's nice, but these days there's only one verdict I'm tuning into every week.